Gaisford v. Frostman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gaisford v. Frostman

202 So. 2d 790

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 1967

DocketNo. 688

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 202 So. 2d 790 (Gaisford v. Frostman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gaisford v. Frostman, 202 So. 2d 790 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants (defendants), John S. Gais-ford and Lucy Gaisford, appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a non-jury trial awarding appellee (plaintiff), Lucille Frostman, a real estate commission.

Appellants’ primary thrust on appeal is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial judge are clearly erroneous and manifestly against the weight and effect of the evidence.

As the trier of fact the trial judge has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and these findings are clothed with the presumption of correctness. Dade Engineering & Construction Co. v. D’Amato, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 627; Bass v. Bass, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 346. The court’s findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless .it is shown that there is a total lack of substantial evidence to support these conclusions. LaFrance Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d, 330; Chakford v. Strum, Fla. 1956, 87 So.2d 419.

The court having had the benefit of oral argument and having considered the same, carefully examined and considered the record on appeal, the briefs and the points raised, finds that the appellants have failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s finding.

Affirmed.

ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., and WILLIAMS, O. EDGAR, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants (defendants), John S. Gais-ford and Lucy Gaisford, appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a non-jury trial awarding appellee (plaintiff), Lucille Frostman, a real estate commission.

Appellants’ primary thrust on appeal is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial judge are clearly erroneous and manifestly against the weight and effect of the evidence.

As the trier of fact the trial judge has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and these findings are clothed with the presumption of correctness. Dade Engineering & Construction Co. v. D’Amato, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 627; Bass v. Bass, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 346. The court’s findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless .it is shown that there is a total lack of substantial evidence to support these conclusions. LaFrance Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d, 330; Chakford v. Strum, Fla. 1956, 87 So.2d 419.

The court having had the benefit of oral argument and having considered the same, carefully examined and considered the record on appeal, the briefs and the points raised, finds that the appellants have failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s finding.

Affirmed.

ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., and WILLIAMS, O. EDGAR, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 2d 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaisford-v-frostman-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack